extra wide angle lens for 8x10

[Chauncey Walden]

That's all mine covers. Gets pretty nasty after that.

[david@bigeleisenlaw.com]

Thank you to all who replied. This was very helpful.

David

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use the Nikkor SW 120 for extra wide angle on 8x10. I also use a Nikkor W 210.

[Mark Sampson]

David, since you've excited all this interest, please let us know what you decide to do- and eventually share some pictures with us.

[Robert Opheim]

Wide angle lenses for 8x10 are a little bit unusual. The more expensive and the newer the lenses are (that have more coverage for movements) then they are really big and heavy. Such lenses: 155mm Grandagon, 165mm Super Angulon, 150mm Nikor SW etc. The camera needs to be matched with these lenses for their weight and size. I would be very careful with them - I broke the front standard on an old tailboard camera many years ago with a big lens. If you don't need a lot of movements / or you are taking images focusing closer to the camera (so you don't need so much coverage from the lens) the previous generation of lenses (or other current lenses) work quite well: 165mm angulons, 190mm wide field ektars, 6 1/2 inch dagor WA, 8x10 Protar V, 210mm Dagor, 210mm Kowa Graphic (Computar). These are just a few of the older possible lenses. The equipment depends on what you are intending to use if for. And the forever comparisons of: portability vs stability vs weight vs cost vs availability.

[John Layton]

As Robert's post above reiterates...wide angle lenses for 8x10 are indeed "unusual," in that there are basically no choices to be had for anything of recent design and manufacture which would truly rise to the performance levels of more current (but physically heavy and huge) offerings, but which could also be defined as being "compact." This is really too bad.

[paulbarden]

As Robert's post above reiterates...wide angle lenses for 8x10 are indeed "unusual," in that there are basically no choices to be had for anything of recent design and manufacture which would truly rise to the performance levels of more current (but physically heavy and huge) offerings, but which could also be defined as being "compact." This is really too bad.

I use the 190mm Wide Field Ektar and it’s a superb lens. I have no complaints whatsoever about it.

[John Layton]

Paul, are you making contact sheets or enlargements from 8x10?

I ask this as my "negative" comment on the state of affairs respective of "modern" lens design is more related to the ability to hold detail out to the edges of significant (say 30x40 inches and larger) enlargements.

[paulbarden]

Paul, are you making contact sheets or enlargements from 8x10?

I ask this as my "negative" comment on the state of affairs respective of "modern" lens design is more related to the ability to hold detail out to the edges of significant (say 30x40 inches and larger) enlargements.

I make contact prints from my 8x10 negs, but I also scan and make large prints up to 17X22 inches.

[Robert Opheim]

I have been researching the issue of another camera and/or wide angle lens for a while for 8x10 format. With the nature of 8x10 having less depth of field as a format because the lenses are a longer focal length for the format coverage than 4x5. Currently I use a: 6 1/2" WA, 8 1/4 Dagor and a 240mm Nikor W lenses for wide angle. Sadly, there are almost no 180mm focal length lenses that work with the 8x10 format. Typically printed onto 16x20" sometimes 20x24" (now) Arista variable contrast paper. I have noticed there is some more detail in the prints of the 8x10 negatives than the 4x5 negatives that I enlarge. So for some subject matter the 8x10 format works better (clouds, and driftwood in the details as an example). I have found that not all subject matter works any better with 8x10 format.